Differences between Summicron, Summilux, Elmarit Lenses

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Okay, one more try.

 

- Price points are not the same as quality points.

 

- The Summarit range was specifically brought in to appeal at a price point.

 

- Price is not the only determining factor in lens choice.

 

- Speed is not the only determining factor in lens selection.

 

I'm done here.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[rolu]

I think we talk past each other. So maybe another time.

Regards

[bill]

Indeed.

 

Never mind. Meet me in the Bar and I'll stand you a round

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[lct]

That's why I think we agree.

Happy that you agree with me but i couldn't disagree more with E. Puts' classification i must say. Suggesting that Summicrons are 'squeezed' and would then disappear in favour of Summiluxes as standard lenses sounds hazardous at best. Summicrons will stay alive as long as Summiluxes will cost (at least) 50% more IMHO. Only question is viability of Summarit lenses which are somewhat 'squeezed' between Summicrons and CZ/CV lenses IMHO.

[adan]

Slightly off the Leica lens name subject, but since it came up in context: The Zeiss lens names are tied to general optical formula, or at least they were up until the ZM lenses:

 

Biogon = "true" symmetrical wide-angle, for non-SLR cameras (Hassy SWC 38mm Biogon, Contax G 21 and 28 Biogons, original Contax RF 21 f/4.5 Biogon)

 

Distagon = strictly "retrofocus" wide-angles - probably the Zeiss name used most consistently

 

Planar = roughly speaking, a straightforward double-gauss-type for SLR 50s and 85s, but also has developed a cachet and has been used for other "fast" lenses (100 and 135mm f/2) or lenses with exceptional performance (Makro-Planars in both Contax and Hassy lines). The name suggests flatness of field, although whether that is really a signature of the name I don't know.

 

Tessar = simple 4-element slower lens - as mentioned already, the basis for the Leitz Elmar of similar specs and also other simple, relatively slow lenses like many SLR pancake 40-45 designs.

 

Sonnar = originally the "Summilux" of the Zeiss line, a design different from the Planars, not double-gauss, for faster apertures. Now has drifted to mostly be a designation for telephoto-design long lenses, more like the Leica "Telyt"

 

Hologon = a specific, fixed-aperture Superwide for 35mm, in the 15/16mm range.

 

Looking at the Hasseblad system, one can see this pattern: Biogon for the sole non-ttl superwide 38mm, Distagon for all other wides that use SLR viewing, Planar for the 80-120mm range of roughly normal focal lengths (some Makro), Sonnar for 150mm and longer.

[toby64]

Despite the negative comments in this thread attached to Puts' comments, you may find it worth reading his entire treatise on Leica M-Series lenses, "Their Soul and Secrets" which is published by Leica and available as a free PDF download here.

 

Toby

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One more thing to keep in mind is historicity:

 

What became the "Elmar" was originally called Elmax, short for the company E Leitz and the designer Max Berek. Lack of euphony was cited for the name change to Elmar.

 

Remember, these are the days when people cared for their equipment and were able to personalize their creations.

 

Victor Hasselblad so loved his dog that he named him "Leica."

[ho_co]

...Hologon = a specific, fixed-aperture Superwide for 35mm, in the 15/16mm range....

Wasn't the original 15 mm? And in a fixed-focus body compatible with the Contarex line. Later offered by Leica in a non-coupled focusing mount for the M camera.

 

Didn't Zeiss then resurrect the name for a variable-aperture 16 mm lens for the late Yashica Contax?

 

Yashica Contax isn't remotely related to the Zeiss Contax.

Yashica Hologon isn't remotely related (except in approximate focal length) to the Zeiss Hologon.

 

And so the blurring of the names begins.

[Xmas]

Wasn't the original 15 mm? And in a fixed-focus body compatible with the Contarex line. Later offered by Leica in a non-coupled focusing mount for the M camera.

 

Didn't Zeiss then resurrect the name for a variable-aperture 16 mm lens for the late Yashica Contax?

 

Yashica Contax isn't remotely related to the Zeiss Contax.

Yashica Hologon isn't remotely related (except in approximate focal length) to the Zeiss Hologon.

 

And so the blurring of the names begins.

 

15mm Hologon 3 element 3 group lens for a Contarex non SLR body, later M mount

16mm Hologon 5 element 3 group lens for Contax G1/G2 family

 

Both lenses are a pair of meniscus either side of 'loupe style eyepiece', both fixed aperture, 16mm is higher refractive index glass but still deep curves.

 

But we could have a flame war about this if we try?

 

Noel

P.S. the Zeiss lenses for the ZM camera and the Cosina lenses for the Bessa camera and early Leitz lenses for the Barnacks will all work ok on a M, some need simple adapters, a few will disable the meter, like the 15mn Hologon above. They older lenses have less contrast e.g. will pastel the colours, demand can control prices, - the 15mm Hologon few hundred converted by/for Leitz difficult availability '74, astronomical cost today...

[Xmas]

Okay, one more try.

 

- Price points are not the same as quality points.

 

- The Summarit range was specifically brought in to appeal at a price point.

 

- Price is not the only determining factor in lens choice.

 

- Speed is not the only determining factor in lens selection.

 

I'm done here.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Hi Bill

 

Every thing you say is always good, even when it is 'no' - but I'd suggest adding

 

'/performance'

 

the Bowderlised text to read

 

- The Summarit range was specifically brought in to appeal at a price/performance point.

 

the performance is real good, it is a real Leica lens, the f/2 lens is merely faster, and more £.

 

The modern Elmar (out of production) is close to the summarit f/2.5 or summicron f/2, on the MTF machine at f/5.6 or smaller, another real Leica lens.

 

Noel

[ho_co]

... But we could have a flame war about this if we try?...

Kannitverstan. Why would you want that?

 

... early Leitz lenses for the Barnacks...

Never heard the class term "Barnacks"--do you mean "screw-mount Leicas"?

 

 

NX--

Thanks for the explanation of the two Hologons. I stand corrected.

 

I've seen a lens diagram of the Hologon 15, but not of the 16. Could you point me toward a source of information on the latter?

 

The 15 was f/8 and furnished with a graduated ND filter, turning it into effectively f/16.

 

Any idea why Zeiss chose a different focal length for the later version?

 

What was aperture of the 16? From your description, I assume it also required a graduated filter. Was that supplied with the lens, as was the case with the original? What effective aperture did the combination reach?

 

Did Zeiss offer a hood for the 16? (They didn't for the 15, of course.) If so, was it supplied with the lens as well, or offered as an accessory?

 

... 'loupe style eyepiece' ...

I have no idea what that means. You're using both 'loupe' and 'eyepiece' in a way I'm unfamiliar with. Could you explain?

 

To me, a 'loupe' is a small, often hand-held magnifying glass, sometimes multi-element.

 

To me, an 'eyepiece' is the lens of a telescope, camera, microscope, etc into which one looks.

 

The idea of a 'magnifying eyepiece' inside a lens makes no sense to me.

[Overgaard]

On the original question:

 

It would be a good idea to start narrowing down to a 50mm or 35mm lens, and then perhaps start out with the idea of a f/2.0

 

f/2.0 because that's economical, easier to focus with a rangefinder and "enough" for most usage with the high ISO the M9 goes up to. And you will have the look and feel of Leica all over the lens.

 

Either 35mm or 50mm because that would be one of the "classic" Leica lenses. The 35mm is the classic and most sold Leica lens ever. The 50mm may suit you better, but one of those.

 

If you want to have the full advantage of digital and the image qualities you can obtain, look for ASPH lenses only: These lenses are so detailed and sharp in the minor details it's a thrill to blow the images up and admire that quality. The non-ASPH lenses can very often look the same quality in print, but when blown up you will see how they are "not meant for the digital age." I like the look of the older ones, but that's me, and perhaps a phase I'll get over ;-)

 

What speak for getting a brand new lens is that you then have some insurance that it will be flawless and coated - and it suits the new camera. But there is also plenty of second-hand lenses around.

 

In all this I assume you aim for perfection, which is what a new ASPH lens will provide. If you're more artistic minded or like "careless" shooting, the second-hand options into older lenses and perhaps even "funky" lenses such as a 75mm f/1.4 might be considered.

 

Hope this helps.

[Jeff S]

Sorry if it's been mentioned elsewhere here, but a good source of information on lenses (and cameras) is Sean Reid's site...Welcome to ReidReviews His reviews include comparisons between various Leica and other M compatible lenses. Moreover, his essays on general photography are superb. There's a small annual fee, but you will get your value back quickly.

 

Mr. Puts also offers some free information, including his well known lens compendium, which can be downloaded...Erwin Puts' Site

 

 

 

Jeff

[adan]

Wasn't the original 15 mm? And in a fixed-focus body compatible with the Contarex line. Later offered by Leica in a non-coupled focusing mount for the M camera.

 

Yes

 

Didn't Zeiss then resurrect the name for a variable-aperture 16 mm lens for the late Yashica Contax?

 

Nope - they resurrected the name, the focus mount, the f/8 aperture, the graduated filter, the overall shape and size, AND the overall double-hemisphere design for a FIXED aperture 16mm f/8 lens made in Germany for the Kyocera Contax G series.

 

Yashica Hologon isn't remotely related (except in approximate focal length) to the Zeiss Hologon.

 

Mmmm - take a look at the pictures here comparing the original Zeiss 15mm Hologon in Leica-M mount with the Zeiss 16mm Hologon in Contax G mount. They look pretty darn related to me.

 

For LEICA M cameras - Part IV Zeiss Ikon/Voigtlander/Contarex Hologon (10.0659) Superwide Camera w/ 8/15 (15mm f/8.0)

 

A couple of internal differences. The hour-glass "Siamese-twin" middle element of the original Hologon, with the fixed aperture at the neck, has been replaced with two elements cemented as a group (with the fixed aperture at the neck). And the front hemispheric element is sliced in half to use two kinds of glass (but the group is still hemispheric).

 

But the two versions of the Hologons are at least as similar as, say, the f/4 and f/3.4 versions of the Super-Angulon 21 for the Leica M.

 

(speaking of which - back on topic - Leica lenses with the Super-Angulon name (21 f/4 and f/3.4 M, 21 f/4 R, 28 f/2.8 PC-R) are all Schneider designs)

[ho_co]

Andy, thanks for the corrections and for the link.

 

I somehow had the name "Yashica." Is that a brand name of Kyocera? Or is my confusion deeper than I know?

 

All the later Contax-named cameras appeared at a time when my interests were elsewhere.

 

 

Gee, I love that rectangular graduated filter!

 

And I wouldn't have guessed that the filter supplied with the 15/8 Hologon was made by Leitz and not Zeiss!

[lct]

AFAIR the Hologon 16/8 was a Carl Zeiss lens made in Japan for the Yashica-Contax G1 & G2 but i may be wrong.

[Xmas]

At least one of the G1/G2 lenses were/have 'made in germany' labets - the Holgon, the rest of the G1/G2 kit was Ja manufactured, like the ZM cameras and lenses, only a few parts made in Ge. I think the low volume kit is cost effective for Ge manufacture, bean counters rule...

 

Noel.

[Xmas]

Kannitverstan. Why would you want that?

 

 

Never heard the class term "Barnacks"--do you mean "screw-mount Leicas"?

 

 

NX--

Thanks for the explanation of the two Hologons. I stand corrected.

 

I've seen a lens diagram of the Hologon 15, but not of the 16. Could you point me toward a source of information on the latter?

 

The 15 was f/8 and furnished with a graduated ND filter, turning it into effectively f/16.

 

Any idea why Zeiss chose a different focal length for the later version?

 

What was aperture of the 16? From your description, I assume it also required a graduated filter. Was that supplied with the lens, as was the case with the original? What effective aperture did the combination reach?

 

Did Zeiss offer a hood for the 16? (They didn't for the 15, of course.) If so, was it supplied with the lens as well, or offered as an accessory?

 

 

I have no idea what that means. You're using both 'loupe' and 'eyepiece' in a way I'm unfamiliar with. Could you explain?

 

To me, a 'loupe' is a small, often hand-held magnifying glass, sometimes multi-element.

 

To me, an 'eyepiece' is the lens of a telescope, camera, microscope, etc into which one looks.

 

The idea of a 'magnifying eyepiece' inside a lens makes no sense to me.

 

All our statements are correct, almost

 

The Hologon is derived from the Abbe eye piece, although that is not what it says in the patent...

 

An eye piece magnifies a virtual image inside a telescope or microscope, a loupe magnifies a real image, the optics may be the same...

 

The Hologon is two menisci surrounding an Abbe eyepiece, or that is how you can visualize how Glatzel derived it.

 

The Abbe eye piece started out at a solid cylinder of glass, both ends have deep convex curves ground and the middle is waisted like a wasp, to form a fixed stop. Glatzel then surrounded this with two deep menisci to get a wide angle lens. Then the design team would have spend ages ray tracing etc...

 

This is a brief explanation please ask if you ned more.

 

Noel

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ho_co]

AFAIR the Hologon 16/8 was a Carl Zeiss lens made in Japan for the Yashica-Contax G1 & G2 but i may be wrong.

As I read Andy's link, it's the only lens for the set that was made in Germany.

[ho_co]

NX--

You seem to have some knowledge to offer. Why don't you quit hiding behind idiosyncratic terms and abbreviations?

 

It is also generally considered good practice to include a reference when introducing new ideas.

 

In general, on this forum knowledge is more respected than pomposity.

 

 

According to Andy's link, the graduated filter for the Leica-M Hologon was made by Leitz.

 

Any idea whether that is accurate? The Zeiss filter for the camera seems almost identical to the one for the M version.

 

There's at least one factual error in the data on that page, viz "The internal filter thread has also been eliminated."